‘US hypocritical on world without nukes’

Press TV interviews David Lindorff, an author and investigative journalist.

Loading ...

The trouble with the United States is that while it said it’s against nuclear weapons since the day it built them, it has actually favored nuclear weapons in the hands of its friends – Britain, France, you name it – and opposed them in the hands of its enemies.”

The United States takes a hypocritical position on the issue of a world without nuclear weapons, an American author tells Press TV.
In a unilateral move, Washington announced that the international conference on banning nuclear weapons in the Middle East was cancelled and could not be convened over worries that its long-time ally in the region, the Israeli regime, would come under fire as the only possessor of the weapons in the region.
Press TV has conducted an interview with David Lindorff, an author and investigative journalist from Philadelphia, to further discuss the issue. Lindorff is joined by Zayd al-Isa, a political analyst from London, and Richard Hellman, the president of the Middle East Research Center, from Washington. The following is a rough transcription of the interview.
Press TV: The US has said that it is cancelling the conference because of the special conditions in the Middle East at this time. What do you think are those special conditions?
Lindorff: Actually, I think the US said what they were: it’s because of the violent conflict in Gaza with the Israeli attack on Gaza and the missiles being fired out of Gaza; then the Syrian civil war; and the third one they cited was the unsettled political situation in Egypt.
But the basic point is that the US has a long history of not wanting to talk when it feels that it’s not in a position of advantage. Obviously the vote in the UN was a huge blow, diplomatically to the US, so it doesn’t want to do the conference now. It’s the kind of thing we see frequently from the United States.
Press TV: Those reasons that you said that the United States has stated, let’s say because of those reasons, wouldn’t it be more logical to actually want to pursue even faster a non-nuclear Middle East? If there’s a lack of stability, if there are transitions taking place throughout the region, then shouldn’t we in speed try to get to that goal of a non-nuke Middle East and world?
Lindorff: I date back, I’m sorry to say, to the Vietnam peace talks in Paris when the US continually stalled and stonewalled over the shape and size of a table because it didn’t want to have serious peace talks until it reached what it thought it could obtain; which was an upper hand in the conflict in Vietnam.
They never did get the upper hand and ultimately there were peace talks. You know, it was forced to do it.
The American position generally is not to talk when it is feeling threatened and right now it’s been dealt a diplomatic embarrassment at a minimum, so it doesn’t want to talk.Press TV: Your perspective. Though I asked [previous guest speaker] Mr. Hellman, basically, isn’t it obviously better if an entity, no matter who it is, is willing to actually sign and say that they are ready to abide by a ban on nuclear weapons, what would be wrong with having this type of conference at this time, is the question?
Lindorff: Obviously nothing. None of the things that Mr. Hellman mentioned have anything to do with nuclear weapons. A nuclear weapon would be useless against trying to prevent people being killing in Syria or people on Tahrir Square, God hopes.
By the way, I think that he was fast and loose in talking about democratic movement. People fighting against Assad, who is clearly a dictator, don’t have terrific democratic credentials either. It’s more of a civil war among tribal factions and all kinds of elements including al-Qaeda in Syria and not a democratic movement like what we saw in Tahrir Square.
Aside from that, clearly it’s to everyone’s advantage to not have nuclear weapons floating around in a region with as many instabilities as the Middle East.
The trouble with the United States is that while it said it’s against nuclear weapons since the day it built them, it has actually favored nuclear weapons in the hands of its friends - Britain, France, you name it - and opposed them in the hands of its enemies.
The US goes along with this charade that Israel doesn’t have nuclear weapons and it opposes the notion of Iran ever having a nuclear weapon, saying that that’s a redline that can never be crossed, which is totally a double standard.
There are nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Obviously, Israel has them. We know that. There were documents released in South Africa proving that Israel was talking about providing three sizes of nuclear weapons to the South Africans before the Apartheid regime was overthrown. The US simply pretends that they don’t exist.
Press TV: Mr. Lindorff, I give you the last 30 seconds. Go ahead please.
Lindorff: Israel did not have nuclear weapons to protect itself from Iran. It’s had nuclear weapons since the Shah was there who was an ally of Israel.
But the point is that - and we keep saying “suspected weapons” - they have the weapons. We know they have the weapons. They have 200 to 400 weapons. They have enough to wipe out all of the Middle East…
(In response to guest speaker Mr. Hellman’s comments regarding Israel’s push to maintain its undeclared nuclear weapon stockpile) …Well, there you go.
The Middle East will not be a safer place until those nuclear weapons are gone, and Iran does not have a nuclear weapon. It will be less likely to try to get one if it doesn’t think it’s about to be attacked by nuclear weapons. That’s the simple truth.
GMA/HSN